Explanation from Sen. Rubio’s Office about the Controversial National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

It was great talking with you. Today, the Senator’s office received many emails and phone calls voicing concerns over the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. There have been many assertions made about these provisions, some of which could not be further from the truth. It just so happens these outlandish accusations are from the ACLU and their allies in Congress.

First off, this bill does not allow the US military to supplant your local police department in carrying out typical law enforcement activities. Section 1031 only affirms the authority that the president currently has to detain certain people pursuant to the current military force authorization; in fact, this bill says that nothing in this section is intended to expand the president’s power. In addition, in reaffirming the president’s authority to detain people, this section specifically limits the people who can be detained under this act to only those people who planned or helped carry out the 9/11 attacks on the United States or people who are a member of or substantially support Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that fighting against the US and its coalition partners. Simply put, you need to be involved with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or one of its surrogates and you have to make a deliberate act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror to be detained under this act.

Section 1032 of this bill deals with the requirements that are needed for the U.S. military to hold people in custody. This portion of the act differs from section 1031 in that this section deals with a much more select group of people that must be detained by the U.S. Military. Any person detained under the authority of Section 1032 must be a member or part of Al-Qaeda or an associated force AND they must have participated in the planning or execution of an attack against the US or our coalition partners. In addition, this section of the act has a limiting clause that specifically states that the military detention requirement does not extend to US citizens or lawful permanent residents.

I want to thank you all for reaching out to the office to voice your concerns on this bill. I want to assure you that Senator Rubio and his staff always have, and always will, listen to your concerns and address them in a timely fashion.

The Senator has proposed 2 Amendments to prevent the President from transferring foreign terrorists to the U.S. to be prosecuted in the federal court system. However, in regard to the idea that this bill allows the U.S. military to supplant our local police departments and detain otherwise law abiding citizens for purchasing gold or guns is unfounded. Those types of measures are not included in this bill; moreover, the Senator would never support them. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me.

Please find the text of S. 1867, Section 1031 and 1032 below.

Sincerely Yours,

J.R.

J.R. Sanchez

Director of Outreach

Office of United States Senator Marco Rubio

Hart 317

Washington DC 20510

Subtitle D–Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined–

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

Comments

I have to say that Sen. Rubio’s letter does not relieve my concerns. Sec 1031 can still be open to the current party in power’s interpretation of who is hostile to the United States.

” (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

I see this law being used against Americans in the future.

It’s a sad day when someone we send to the Senate is pulled into the same old good old boy, you better play by our rules group.

Quote from the article:
“What was revealed in the audit was startling: $16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious — the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.”

We are being robbed blind and the government doesn’t seem willing to do anything about it!

You have betrayed us. The language “enemy” , terrorist”, and “belligerent act can mean anything. You are an abject supporting this. Pelosi and several leading democrats called those of us peacefully contacting government terrorists and Barak Hussein Obama calls us enemies. You have sold us out and are a liar and a fraud…

I do not have the concerns Alicia is concerned with regarding additional powers to the President.
However I am extremely concerned about the powers the President has, without the approval of Congress. We elect individuals to represent our districts and that also includes “We the People of The United States” to Congress – 435 and in the Senate – 100. Yet with these so called checks and balance one individual, The President of the United States can give away billions of dollars, start a non-war [Libya], refuse approval of a passed Congressional bils, go around Congress to enact Congressional required appointees while Congress is on resess [seems to be constant] and I am sure you are all aware of many more instances. It is time we reduce this power of a single individual / administration and demand the re-establishment of the rules of the Constitution and any of the above decisions listed above receive Congressional approval before acted upon. This power is dangerous and harmfull especially in the hands of a novice and self annointed one President Obama
Any so called Czars would also need Congressional approval as they are funded by “The American Tax Payer” and thus should be fully vetted. Furthermore the need for Czars should be debated in Congress or put to the American People to vote on. Has anyone considered the costs of the current so called 36 Czars??? Sure can help reducing the deficit
To put it plainly I am disgusted with the current people in Washington and we need to clean house. When Congress approves a bill and Harry Reid refuses to bring it to the Senate floor for a vote, it tells you what a mess we are in and the determination of the Democratic Party to destroy this Great Nation
We NEED TERM LIMITS

Guess what, people, we must realize that with all the confusing and contradicting “legalese” we have no idea how the NDAA is going to be used. Let me ask you one simple question: What was the Patriot Act for? And a follow up: What was it ACTUALLY USED FOR. The answer is it has been used much more frequently to take away our liberties, and to lock up unconstitutionally our own citizens. Wake up people, we need to oust these people who vote away our liberties and try to CONVINCE US THAT WE NEED these protections. Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.